On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 10:03:03PM -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Thursday, November 08, 2012 21:49:52 Walter Bright wrote: > > BTW, there's no compiler magic in the world that will statically > > guarantee you have a non-buggy implementation of a range.
Yeah, that's one major missing feature from D/Phobos/etc.: a mixin template called EliminateBugs that will fix all your program's bugs for you. I think that should be the next top priority on D's to-do list! ;-) > That's what unit tests are for. :) [...] Well, unittests are a runtime check, and they don't *guarantee* anything. (One could, in theory, write a pathological pseudo-range that passes basic unittests but fail to behave like a range in some obscure corner case. Transient ranges would fall under that category, should we decide not to admit them as valid ranges. :-)) But of course that's just splitting hairs. T -- Amateurs built the Ark; professionals built the Titanic.